Or Else What?

December 16, 2012

Relentlessly
they had offered trenchant, scathing criticism of the blood-soaked,
oil-drenched policies of the Bush administration. They had done it for
years. It was understandable that they would become enthralled with the
soaring liberal rhetoric of a young African-American Senator from Illinois,
improbably running for president. After then-Senator Obama voted for the
FISA Amendments Act — despite having promised he would not do so under any
circumstances — it became clear that Barack Obama would disappoint. It
was by no means clear then how much he would disappoint. Four years
later, it is.

Thus
it was whiplash-inducing to see top liberal mastheads,
media,
blogs,
pundits
and anti-war
activists become full-throated shills for the unconditional reelection of
Barack Obama. They might have repudiated him as thoroughly as they did
his predecessor, and for exactly the same reasons. Alas, that would
require having principles beyond blind partisan loyalty of the inconsequent New
York Yankees vs. New York Mets fan variety, or the dismal, self-defeating
calculus of lesser-of-two-evilism.

The
Nation's
pre-election editorial "Reelect the
President" provides an outstanding specimen of such
"principles," served with a steaming helping of delusion or, less
charitably, deliberate deceit. Contemplate the contorted logic underlying
the statement that "Obama’s defeat would embolden the Blue Dogs and New
Dems," when the president
is admittedly a Blue Dog himself. Or consider this nugget:

“But the moment the new administration
took hold, LGBT activists cajoled, educated, applied pressure from the inside
and protested from the outside, creating the conditions for Obama’s ‘evolution’
on same-sex marriage.”

This
narrative nicely elides the fact that in the 2010 midterms, the percentage of the
LGBT vote going to Republicans(!) doubled(!!) to 30%(?!!) while support for
Democrats dried up. Democrats lost the House in part because of the
backlash from LGBT constituents whose votes they had long taken for granted
without representing their interests in any meaningful way. But then, a wondrous
thing happened: during the lame duck session, before Nancy Pelosi handed
over the Speaker's gavel, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was repealed and the Obama
administration ceased pressing its appeals in support of the Defense of
Marriage Act. A Christmas miracle! I suppose LGBT activists
"cajoled, educated, applied pressure from the inside and protested from
the outside" could be construed as "defected to the Republican
Party." But if so, it suggests a strategy incompatible with The
Nation's advocacy for the unconditional reelection of the Democratic
president.

After
denouncing the lack of focus on "catastrophic climate change and
staggering rates of poverty to the militarization of foreign policy and the
continued growth of the national security state," the editors make an
impressive attempt at the world record for dishonesty and disinformation packed
into a single, short sentence: "To his credit, Obama presided over
the end of the Iraq War and is bringing the war in Afghanistan to a
close." This is of course the exact opposite of reality. As one
blogger succinctly noted:

Even
The Nation's condemnations of Obama's more egregious transgressions are,
to put it generously, understated and inaccurate to the point where one may
well wonder whether the editors have ever read their own publication. Or
any publication:

“He did not end military tribunals and
restore the rule of law for terror suspects.”

Compounding
that perversion of justice, neither did he restore the rule of law for
political and financial elites. One might even conclude that he has
precisely zero respect for it, despite the rule of law being a foundational
principle of our democracy as well as one of the greatest triumphs of
Western civilization, with roots stretching back to the 13th century.

“He launched a drone war that is killing
civilians and fueling a backlash against the United States throughout the
Muslim world.”

“Obama has expanded drone attacks in
Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. He has involved the US in aggressive cyber
warfare and possibly other forms of military aggression against Iran. He has
established and is now looking to expand what AP calls a "covert war in
North Africa". None of this has been debated, let alone voted on, in
Congress. The one time Congress voted on a significant Obama foreign policy -
the war in Libya - it voted against its authorization, and Obama

blithely ignored
that vote and proceeded with the war as though Congressional rejection never
happened.”

The
Nation
also helpfully informs us:

“And he has not rolled back the imperial
presidency of George W. Bush, as he promised; indeed, in some instances, more
power has been concentrated in the White House by a president who now reserves
the right to extrajudicially assassinate US citizens.”

Nevertheless,
it was imperative that we reelect a president who "now reserves the right
to extrajudicially assassinate US citizens," goes to war without
congressional authorization, and kills massive numbers of civilians with an
ever-expanding army of drones. With no apparent awareness of the
vertigo-inducing dissonance, the editors conclude "No matter who is in the
White House, a revived peace and antiwar movement has a lot of work ahead of it
in the next four years—but it is impossible to imagine any progress on that
front with a Romney administration in power."

It
is impossible to imagine any progress on that front with an Obama administration
in power.

The
Nation
was far from alone: Esquire's Charles Pierce offered up an equally
convoluted screed, which blogger vastleft deconstructed beautifully here.
MSNBC
offered more pro-Obama coverage than Fox News did for the Romney/Ryan
ticket. Even MoveOn.org,
ostensibly an anti-war organization, got in on the action: I received
from MoveOn no less than twenty-one emails in 2012, all of them urging the
president's reelection. As early as a year ago, the largest
U.S. labor union had already endorsed Obama. And that's to say
nothing of DailyKos,
Michael
Moore or Bill
Maher, all of whom are also inexplicably under the impression that there
can be some reckoning and accountability, some pressure successfully brought to
bear — after the president is safely reelected.

By
unconditionally supporting the reelection of the president, every one of these
entities divested themselves of all leverage. What was necessary, and
only possible before the election, was a credible threat to withhold that
support. Any prominent pundit, blogger, publication, talking head, union
or activist organization — or better still, a consortium of them — could have
taken a stand: no support until you pledge to [x], where x = [take your
pick]:

get out of
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq, Iran, North Africa and
everywhere else you're secretly bombing civilians, and refrain from new
military action unless and until the U.S. is directly threatened.

disband the grand jury
and cease all criminal investigations in connection with Wikileaks until
there is evidence it has committed any crime other than journalism.

These
standard liberal demands are now pipe dreams. It would be hard enough to
pressure the president had he made such a pledge; it is all but impossible
now. Instead, we have Bill
Maher after the election:

“New Rule: Now that he's been reelected,
President Obama must get back at all those right wing hacks who tried to paint
him as an angry black man pushing a liberal agenda by becoming an angry black
man who's pushing a liberal agenda.”

Must
he? Or else what?

The
president has no interest in pushing a liberal agenda. Unless by
"liberal agenda" we mean more illegal and counterproductive wars,
more privatized health care, more attacks on Social Security and Medicare, more
get-out-of-jail-free cards for war criminals and too-big-to-jail bankers.